Please note, I mean no reflection whatsoever on the comments made by the moderator in the relevant thread.

I ask this so as to gain further understanding.

If a poster "X" has made a claim that is subsequently proven (proven enough for any sane rational and honest person) wrong, is it acceptable behaviour on this forum for X to completely avoid acknowledging the error?

Now I ask this in reference to the rules we operate under (as a forum of rational and honest discussion), not in the interest of having the original factoid correction verified. This has nothing to do with "X"'s original inaccurate claim, and everything to do with "X"'s dishonest tactic of both avoiding acknowledging proven facts, and avoiding recanting the inaccurate claims.

I ask in the interest of discovering what levels of deceitful behaviour are acceptable here.

Added to the "original" sin, it is the obvious intent to dodge that "X" displays through multiple posts all skirting, distorting or straight-out avoiding the issue of honesty (because the dishonesty of his position soon became the real topic) that makes me ask whether or not we can expect and demand the readjustment of inaccurate statements?

And if "X" or those of his ilk continue to practise lying by dodge and omission, should they be tolerated by this forum?

I will add the observation that strict rational appraisal and honesty is the norm here, but that platform can be subverted by the death of the thousand cuts.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

I would think that this deceit and disregard would come under trolling as in the rules. Perhaps it could be added as one of the various examples e.g. "The repeated ignoring of presented facts demonstrates a posters lack of interest in honest discussion".

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I would think that this deceit and disregard would come under trolling as in the rules. Perhaps it could be added as one of the various examples e.g. "The repeated ignoring of presented facts demonstrates a posters lack of interest in honest discussion".

Thank you velkyn for taking the time to answer.

And yes, I believe you are right, it is just a subcategory of trolling, and I do believe it indicates exactly what you say, an obvious disinterest in honest discussion.

Do you feel that evidence of such behaviour warrants moderation?

I am in a quandary, in that I cannot see how the forum can continue to engage someone who is essentially displaying such an obvious disinterest in honest discussion, without making itself an accomplice to the disingenuous behaviour.

By continuing to countenance the behaviour/presence of someone who has essentially been shown to be in error, but who refuses to acknowledge the error or recant the erroneous claim, the forum diminishes its own claims as a venue of accurate, rational and honest discussion.

I am not suggesting arbitrary ban-hammer, but I am suggesting that some behaviour is so inimicable to honest discourse that it should be subject to eradication on sight, and if the poster cannot be persuaded through rational moderation (to acknowledge irrefutable evidence at least) then the poster should be banned.

I admit to being pretty irritated right now, so I would welcome a dispassionate appraisal of the above.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 07:59:42 PM by kin hell »

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Sometimes I have a problem knowing when someone is being dishonest or is just plain dumb. What do you think is a good way to tell the difference?

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Now that I think about it, there probably should be a point when one must assume that the person is being dishonest, because how can they be THAT stupid? IOW if they otherwise appear intelligent and/or have in the past been able to compromise their position(s) faced with evidence to the contrary, one might reasonable assume they are being dishonest.

In that case I agree with Velkyn.

ADDED: And yes, should be moderated.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 07:50:17 PM by monkeymind »

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Sometimes I have a problem knowing when someone is being dishonest or is just plain dumb. What do you think is a good way to tell the difference?

Agreed mmind Sometimes it is very hard to tell, and I would stress that I am only talking about obvious, unmistakeable and deliberate dodging to avoid admitting irrefutable error. Innocent until proven guilty rules.

I am talking about behaviour that forces us to acquiesce (by default) to the false claim that black is white, because we are not forcing the issue, we are not demanding a statement of adjustment of an inaccurate claim to an irrefutable accuracy, and the dishonest poster is happy to hide in our shadow of politesse? laziness? unawareness? impotency? etc.

Again I want to clarify that none of those adjectives apply to any moderator on this forum and I state that this is not about any specific thread modding at all (I have absolutely no complaint whatsoever). I merely seek clarification and the thoughts of my fellow forumites.

This is not about a particular thread/poster, the same as the argument that took place in that thread was not about the facts in question, but about whether or not we can demand honesty when deceit is obvious?

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

You're describing the actions of many people. I won't use names but I've expressed my outrage at one of these in specific multiple times. It's a sign of being wrong, knowing it, but refusing to acknowledge it. In simple terms, being headstrong and stubborn.

How many posters stroll in here and claim that our earth is 6,000 years old? Certainly, we've had our share. But what are we to do with this completely wrong, and factually demonstrable lie, in the face of reality? Perhaps this particular lie is not so obvious when compared to a proof that a circle cannot be a square, no matter how insistent the claim, or how much one might actually disagree.

We operate on a strange continuum of "beliefs", where challenges to things that are seemingly irrefutable are tossed into the mix with a passion, and popularity that would seem to add weight to there being some chance that this irrefutable belief is completely wrong. Technically, I suppose nothing can ever be 100% factual.

When it comes to moderation, there will be times when things do not balance well. There will be an occasion where mods disagree, and the call is left to a gut feeling. There will be times when a seemingly obvious call goes in an odd favor. And this works both ways, in my opinion. I don't want to start a "Report to Moderator" frenzy, but we do rely on those reports to help keep things running smoothly. I would always recommend the use of that tool in cases where a member feels that something should be considered.

And, I should add, many of those reports are very, very brief. Even though that text box is small, it does allow more than what is shown. So, make a case! And of course, you can always PM a mod for clarity, or to discuss something that is nothing you about an action, or an inaction.

How many posters stroll in here and claim that our earth is 6,000 years old? Certainly, we've had our share. But what are we to do with this completely wrong, and factually demonstrable lie, in the face of reality? Perhaps this particular lie is not so obvious when compared to a proof that a circle cannot be a square, no matter how insistent the claim, or how much one might actually disagree.

We operate on a strange continuum of "beliefs", where challenges to things that are seemingly irrefutable are tossed into the mix with a passion, and popularity that would seem to add weight to there being some chance that this irrefutable belief is completely wrong. Technically, I suppose nothing can ever be 100% factual.

I do understand this jets, and you have raised a complex point, namely where does faith and its palpable illogic and untruths get a pass, and where does obvious disingenuousness get moderated?

And agreed I doubt even putting fingers in the "risen' christ would've proven anything absolutely.

Quote

When it comes to moderation, there will be times when things do not balance well. There will be an occasion where mods disagree, and the call is left to a gut feeling. There will be times when a seemingly obvious call goes in an odd favor. And this works both ways, in my opinion. I don't want to start a "Report to Moderator" frenzy, but we do rely on those reports to help keep things running smoothly. I would always recommend the use of that tool in cases where a member feels that something should be considered.

AgreedAnd all kudos to the moderators for their efforts serving this forum. Truthfully to expect absolute consistency/precision/un-oddities would be to deny our monkey makeup, and this applies to all theists atheists and moderators.

But in some cases it appears that the behaviour it is not a matter of lying for god (as holding illogical faith-powered positions requires), but a more fundamental inability, or worse, deliberate unwillingness to even begin to be honest, and this alone is what I am questioning in terms of this forum's response.

Quote

And, I should add, many of those reports are very, very brief. Even though that text box is small, it does allow more than what is shown. So, make a case! And of course, you can always PM a mod for clarity, or to discuss something that is nothing you about an action, or an inaction.

My .02.

And again, understood and agreed.And I thank you for the useful 0.02 mate.

You're describing the actions of many people. I won't use names but I've expressed my outrage at one of these in specific multiple times. It's a sign of being wrong, knowing it, but refusing to acknowledge it. In simple terms, being headstrong and stubborn.

And the problem seems to be discerning the difference of intent? that jetson touches on.I believe my method in future will be (without causing a report to mod frenzy) to not try and resolve the issue via the threads,but once the issue is unmistakeable, to hand the issue in depth over to the mods.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

While the newest of anyone adding to this thread so far, I have seen at least one thread where I believe this sort of behavior has happened. But IRL I know someone who has just enough knowledge to think he can participate on a higher level than he actually can but genuinely does not understand that when we correct him we are not bashing him and that he is wrong.

So, banning - the idea makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know what the moderators can do to restrict someone's posts but that would be somewhat better - but I do worry about it becoming a chore riding herd on the violator.

A suggestion: when such a violator is reported and if the moderator agrees that such deception is taking place then the violator is officially given a choice to come clean or be restricted in some fashion (depending upon how such things work). It will force the violator to face their own actions and take responsibility or suffer appropriate consequences.

Being new I do realize this might be what was already being suggested with several things unspoken and my lack of experience is making me obtuse. But better to suggest and be obvious than not say anything and have a solution go unproposed.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

I would think that this deceit and disregard would come under trolling as in the rules.

Mods when acting as mods really shouldn't in my biased opinion evaluate the brilliance or stupidity of a poster's argument or with the poster's personal biases or even with a poster's ability to comprehend counter arguments.

If X seems to disregard obvious evidence, a smite from the user community seems like an obvious appropriate response. Mods when acting as users, are allowed to use the smite button and call out blatant stupidity as they see fit.

The evidence for theism, doesn't exist in a scientific sense. At best, the most intelligent arguments are indirect and consider the following:1) complexity2) the unknown3) personal experience.

Some theists are quite stupid. I mean, some of the videos for CSE Ministries denying obvious points of science ...

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I have seen at least one thread where I believe this sort of behavior has happened. But IRL I know someone who has just enough knowledge to think he can participate on a higher level than he actually can but genuinely does not understand that when we correct him we are not bashing him and that he is wrong.

I would agree that some posters are not capable of many things, but I am talking about intransigence that is based on deliberate intent, not on any other qualifier.

Quote

So, banning - the idea makes me very uncomfortable.

Agreed ......up to a point

Quote

I don't know what the moderators can do to restrict someone's posts but that would be somewhat better - but I do worry about it becoming a chore riding herd on the violator.

A suggestion: when such a violator is reported and if the moderator agrees that such deception is taking place then the violator is officially given a choice to come clean or be restricted in some fashion (depending upon how such things work). It will force the violator to face their own actions and take responsibility or suffer appropriate consequences.

A variation of this tool of persuasion does exist, it is The Emergency Room (ER).

You may not have noticed it as it is not used very often at all as fortunately most posters are either convinced in thread to amend their ways, or just run away.ER does require mod oversight so no doubt it is an added and onerous duty, but it is designed so that us forumites have direct input in regards to our own view of what has gone on that has caused a poster to end up in ER.

Quote

Being new I do realize this might be what was already being suggested with several things unspoken and my lack of experience is making me obtuse. But better to suggest and be obvious than not say anything and have a solution go unproposed.

I had completely blanked from my mind the fact that ER exists so thank you for nudging that ossifying organ into gear.

I should have titled this thread as

Is intransigence in the face of proof acceptable on this forum? Or is blatant intransigence from a worthy cause for a ER visit?

I would think that this deceit and disregard would come under trolling as in the rules.

Mods when acting as mods really shouldn't in my biased opinion evaluate the brilliance or stupidity of a poster's argument or with the poster's personal biases or even with a poster's ability to comprehend counter arguments.

Agreed (with qualifiers) eg... apart from the need to judge how deliberate some provocative behaviour may be ...etc.But Rick that was never part of this question anyway.

Quote

If X seems to disregard obvious evidence, a smite from the user community seems like an obvious appropriate response. Mods when acting as users, are allowed to use the smite button and call out blatant stupidity as they see fit.

Smiting may have a positive effect, but I honestly think it is only the smiter who gets that non-negative return. Most smitees seem to arc up or if thick-skinned enough, just don't give a shit.

And I am asking just what tolerance to lying and dodging the forum is willing to show? Smiting has proven completely ineffective with X, and we are left with deciding does the type of intransigent poster of the title needs further adjustment?

Quote

The evidence for theism, doesn't exist in a scientific sense. At best, the most intelligent arguments are indirect and consider the following:1) complexity2) the unknown3) personal experience.

Some theists are quite stupid. I mean, some of the videos for CSE Ministries denying obvious points of science ...

again, you appear to be addressing a different question than what I'm asking mate.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Best thing might be for a mod who has previously not been involved in that thread to step in and make an evaluation. It would at least make us look impartial and would ensure the point doesn't get cluttered.

If it were me doing it, I suspect my mod post would be to quote the original (erroneous) claim, then the key points of the rebuttal, then "judge" whether there was enough to decide that the first idiot needs to recent or not.

If we're gong down this route, then the retraction I suspect would need to be in a standard format - for example....

"I was wrong when I said <quote></quote>"

....and that's all. Otherwise I can see the "retraction" either being a long rant that doesn't quite ever get around to the admission, or an "I agree you think I am wrong" or similar weasel-wording.

Best thing might be for a mod who has previously not been involved in that thread to step in and make an evaluation. It would at least make us look impartial and would ensure the point doesn't get cluttered.

If it were me doing it, I suspect my mod post would be to quote the original (erroneous) claim, then the key points of the rebuttal, then "judge" whether there was enough to decide that the first idiot needs to recent or not.

If we're gong down this route, then the retraction I suspect would need to be in a standard format - for example....

"I was wrong when I said <quote></quote>"

....and that's all. Otherwise I can see the "retraction" either being a long rant that doesn't quite ever get around to the admission, or an "I agree you think I am wrong" or similar weasel-wording.

And the weird thing Anf, as soon as I read that very very reasonable plan of action, I found myself (with my don't tread on me head on) withdrawing from the formalising of the problems solution.

But I agree with you wholeheartedly in the end.

Independent oversight/evaluation is a definite win idea, and given enough "obviousness of deliberate intransigence" I think it would be fair to be able to demand a retraction or a formalised simple recant. (I agree with the rant avoid, or weasel word avoid, make it simple and formal)

Otherwise we are really left being pissed on from a height regarding honest and rational communication of ideas.

Grrr grind my teeth that I live in the world where I have to treat adults as naughty children where they have to be coerced into doing the correct thing.

And if they refuse to recant, and can offer no genuine rational reason to support the refusal, then I'd propose ER for them ....whadyathink?

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

Best thing might be for a mod who has previously not been involved in that thread to step in and make an evaluation.

Reasonable suggestion.

Quote

If it were me doing it, I suspect my mod post would be to quote the original (erroneous) claim, then the key points of the rebuttal, then "judge" whether there was enough to decide that the first idiot needs to recent or not.

Why bother? Why should stupidity be against the rules? This is a religious discussion forum isn't it? 1

If a person is wrong, other people will see, whether he/she acknowledges it or not.

Quote

If we're gong down this route, then the retraction I suspect would need to be in a standard format - for example....

"I was wrong when I said <quote></quote>"

....and that's all. Otherwise I can see the "retraction" either being a long rant that doesn't quite ever get around to the admission, or an "I agree you think I am wrong" or similar weasel-wording.

Wouldn't smitting the offending post with the following comment be more appropriate:"weasel wording, dodging reasonable questions and unbelieveable stupidity".

1- We live in a physical world and all our senses are material. Any deduction suggesting the existanceof a supernatural world are going to contain some logical fallacies somewhere. Religion is often aboutemotional rather than logical thinking; religious beliefs are similar psychologically to political ones. People are naturally biased ...

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Wouldn't smitting the offending post with the following comment be more appropriate:"weasel wording, dodging reasonable questions and unbelieveable stupidity".

1- We live in a physical world and all our senses are material. Any deduction suggesting the existanceof a supernatural world are going to contain some logical fallacies somewhere. Religion is often aboutemotional rather than logical thinking; religious beliefs are similar psychologically to political ones. People are naturally biased ...

my bold

...for all the reasons I have expressed below, a number of times, smiting is obviously not enough to alter some behaviour, and if the behaviour is "intransigence"[1] in the face of evidence that could be deemed outside of the distort of reality that is religious belief, then why as a rationality based forum of discussion should we have to tolerate what is just provocative and irrational behaviour.

If I claim "a tiger is a bovine" to make a point, and you, in your reasonable requirement for accuracy, point out that a tiger is not a bovine, and include links to reasonable authorities as evidence, do you not think that for the sake of honest discourse, I should at least acknowledge the correction?

And if I continue to dodge duck weave and weasel just to avoid recanting my original erroneous claim, what possible credibility do I have in any discussion, and what possible credence is there in any idea that I am worth tolerating on site?

I will explain again Ricky, this behaviour has nothing to do with the requirements of god belief.This behaviour is just self indulgent, emotional and dishonest.

And by tolerating it we debase the fundamental framework of "rational" discussion.

And if they refuse to recant, and can offer no genuine rational reason to support the refusal, then I'd propose ER for them ....whadyathink?

Yes.

Temporarily lock the thread in question. Open an ER thread with the "mod ruling" as I detailed above - clim, key points, ruling, retraction statement - then its down to them to post it or not. When (if) they do, the retraction is QFT into the original thread, which is then re-opened for the original debate to continue.

Gosh I'm being reasonable today. Must be all the goodwill to all men (but not turkeys) of the season. That and I got the new Frankie Boyle book for Xmas - yippee!

I will explain again Ricky, this behaviour has nothing to do with the requirements of god belief.This behaviour is just self indulgent, emotional and dishonest.

When people with different biases argue politics for example, the perception of dishonesty on the part of an opponent is natural. Its very often the case that at the root of a perception of intellectual dishonesty, different assumptions are employed.

Quote

And by tolerating it we debase the fundamental framework of "rational" discussion.

Using the smite button isn't really tolerating it. Expressing disagreement or calling out the perceived dishonesty isn't tolerating it either.

None of these activities require the use of a parent-style moderator.

The responses to the posts will naturally, without moderator interference, express the quality of thought a poster is using.

Again, the poster may not see their dishonesty. Everybody else reading the thread will.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I will explain again Ricky, this behaviour has nothing to do with the requirements of god belief.This behaviour is just self indulgent, emotional and dishonest.

When people with different biases argue politics for example, the perception of dishonesty on the part of an opponent is natural. Its very often the case that at the root of a perception of intellectual dishonesty, different assumptions are employed.

Quote

And by tolerating it we debase the fundamental framework of "rational" discussion.

Using the smite button isn't really tolerating it. Expressing disagreement or calling out the perceived dishonesty isn't tolerating it either.

None of these activities require the use of a parent-style moderator.

The responses to the posts will naturally, without moderator interference, express the quality of thought a poster is using.

Again, the poster may not see their dishonesty. Everybody else reading the thread will.

The problem is that sometimes there is only one person on the other side of the discussion and if that person is twisting words or using distorted meanings or other weasle-wording, it makes the conversation frustrating at best. And pinning the person down feels like trying to catch a greased pig when you are wearing teflon-coated mittens. I want to point a thread and specific person out but this needs to be about a general rule that applies to everyone and naming anyone will muddy things (at best).

When everyone else is giving one person the benefit of the doubt but they are running out of patience, what then?

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

I will explain again Ricky, this behaviour has nothing to do with the requirements of god belief.This behaviour is just self indulgent, emotional and dishonest.

When people with different biases argue politics for example, the perception of dishonesty on the part of an opponent is natural. Its very often the case that at the root of a perception of intellectual dishonesty, different assumptions are employed.

...again, you are talking about grey areas where different assumptions might provide room for the need to accept diametrically opposed truths for the sake of arguement.We as atheists/agnostics do this every time we engage a theist in terms of discussing what god did/meant etc.

What is it that you are failing to grasp ricky?

How about reading the thread again and trying to understand the basic parameters that I am fast becoming tired of repeatedly having to explain to you.

I am talking about erroneous claims that are capable of being checked by some acceptable authority. Not about the claims that hide in the infinite wriggle room of faith based assumptions.

I refer you to my "tiger is a bovine" example and ask you to address that in terms of what I am asking in this thread, I admit I brought the rural into the conversation, but that shouldn't empower you to start building strawmen in every post.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

I am talking about erroneous claims that are capable of being checked by some acceptable authority.

When somebody says something stupid, it becomes self evident in the context of the discussion. And my God, in the context of political discussions, acceptable authorites are denied all the time.

From that point of view, all creationists should be auto-banned; e.g., the evolution of the eye argument fails in the face of myriads of scientific research. Miller showed an elegant counter claim the the flagelum thing being "irreducibly complex".

And yes, arguing with people who hold irrational beliefs can be annoying. If one really hates that, why post on a web site designed to convert theists?

Think about it.

If you find repeating the same arguments and facts over again, why engage theists?

Your reaction to winning an argument seems to be to ban your opponent

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

I am talking about erroneous claims that are capable of being checked by some acceptable authority.

When somebody says something stupid, it becomes self evident in the context of the discussion. And my God, in the context of political discussions, acceptable authorites are denied all the time.

From that point of view, all creationists should be auto-banned; e.g., the evolution of the eye argument fails in the face of myriads of scientific research. Miller showed an elegant counter claim the the flagelum thing being "irreducibly complex".

And yes, arguing with people who hold irrational beliefs can be annoying. If one really hates that, why post on a web site designed to convert theists?

Think about it.

If you find repeating the same arguments and facts over again, why engage theists?

Your reaction to winning an argument seems to be to ban your opponent

....funny that you misrepresent this whole thread yet again ricky.

I am asking of the forum their opinion.I have not stated that posters should be banned.I have asked is there behaviour ie. intransigence that deserves moderation.please note! I have stated that some intransigence seems to be deliberate and provocative, and not qualified by basic faith-based needs of illogic.

I am bored with trying to separate these behaviours so as you might understand the difference, I don't believe you cannot understand the difference, and I wont bother to answer any more posts that rely on your "apparent" inability to discern the difference.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

You asked if moderation was required. I responded to said question. Typically, moderationeventrually leads to banning.

Well, you may feel such intrascience is deliberate, I'm not in general convinced.

It may be the case that some people are in fact moderated here for intrascience. I'm not a mod here and don't make the policies. I don't feel its a good reason to call in the mods.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.